Civil Law Case Study Analysis

Abstract

The case presents a vivid exemplification of wrongful arrest and should be reconsidered in accordance to law and justice. I believe that law and justice are the major and the most crucial criteria in the course of decision making for everyone who is present here. The most complicated aspect of the case appears to be as follows: the evidence that “male” has been wrongfully arrested is absolutely valid and is currently presented in the court, though “male” is still a defendant and is here to receive the properly evaluated decision. “Male” has obviously suffered from defraud and false arrest – and this is what the court should take into account and base future decision upon.

Civil Law and Justice Case Analysis Sample

The case comprises the following scenario: “male” experienced his daily routine and committed nothing illegal or wrong in the law system’s scope; the subsequent arrest was absolutely wrongful and did not correspond to law system, as all the rights of the “male” were ignored and violated, as well as his freedom and loyalty. Besides, the lady’s approval of a person she met for the first time appeared to be wrongful as well. Moreover, “male” had right to see the video tape. This right was violated and ignored.

Now, I have a question to everyone present in this room: can we talk about democracy and freedom in our country if such cases do happen? Do we have rights indeed, or is it just a pose, a theory that turns out to be far away from reality? Is our law system that far from real life as well? We are here to create this reality for one person right now. How will it be created? It is your responsibility and will. Does this person have the rights and freedoms, or just duties and scary possibilities to be jailed with no proper reason for it?

I do not want to persuade you or to make pressure on you. Everything is evident and clear – all you need is just to look and listen.

Thus, “male” appeared to be wrongfully arrested. First of all, what does this term – “to be wrongfully arrested” – mean in the current law system? There are a lot of definitions as law system is regarded and comprehended from different perspectives. False arrest, according to Legal Dictionary, means the following: “an unlawful restraint of an individual's personal liberty or freedom of movement by another purporting to act according to the law.” So was “male” wrongfully arrested? No doubt. First of all, he was thoroughly questioned on the way to St. Johns church. There was no apparent reason, as well as no valid and currently presented evidence for such an activity performed by the transit officer.

Besides, there was steady refuse of the officer to show the video tape, though initially he agreed upon “male’s” right to watch it. It was legally established and permitted by our law system right; therefore, the officer had no reason or freedom to violate this right. Moreover, let us just think it over: let us assume that the officer indeed had the video tape with the record which was necessary for the accusation of “male” in committing a certain kind of crime. Indeed, if the officer had the video tape – why would not he show the record? The record has not been shown neither initially upon the request of “male,” nor today when all of you are present and could witness the availability of the claimed video tape.

Consequently, there should be some proper reasons for the officer – I do emphasize one more time that we are talking about the officer right now, and this status is expected to be correspondent to the essence as well as duties and responsibilities of the named profession – to hide or conceal the video tape. Does this make sense? It hardly does. That is why it will be logical and distinctly grounded to claim the absence of the named video tape. Otherwise, conscious concealment of crucially important evidence may be regarded as disobeying the law and false statements being an officer and being at job.

There is one more aspect that may be easily and properly attributed to the phenomenon of false arrest – the lady’s confirmation of the villain’s identity. How could a lady, having hardly even seen “male” confirm his identity as the identity of the villain? It was obviously false and made-up confirmation. Was there any evidence? Were there any similarities? Hardly ever. Still, the lady made up her mind to have a right to decide and pronounce false verdict and judgment for “male.”. Had she any right to do so? What responsibility would she now take? The video tape has been obviously made up with the aim to falsely accuse some person in committing a crime the other person has done. The accusation is not proper and legal. It is again the case of obvious violation of human rights and professional responsibilities and duties of the officers.

The fact of performed calumniation is evident and undoubtedly distinct.

I would like to emphasize that our case comprising wrongful arrest of “male” with subsequent false identification and violation of human rights is not the only one in the history of law system. There exist lots of similar cases, as even the perfect law system can not guarantee absolutely lawful society. The police officers are not excluded from the list of potential law violators. Unfortunately, this status is not a steady and efficient guarantee of proper and lawful behavior.

Thus, let us review several cases, similar in their essence, concerning the tort of wrongful arrest of a person, who is not guilty or even is not connected to the trial.

One of the most scandalous and recent cases concerning the false arrest was Columbia case. “The city of Columbia announced Friday that it had settled a wrongful-arrest lawsuit involving a high-profile Five Points case and will pay the plaintiff $300,000” (Monk & Lowe, 2013).

This case vividly demonstrates the apparent triumph of justice and lawful essence of our democracy.

Right now, I would like to leave the case exemplification and presenting the set of evidence for few minutes, and instead talk about the phenomenon of democracy, as it was proclaimed within the previous case sample.

What is democracy? I do realize that there are many definitions. There is a lawful definition, and it is as right and relevant as the social version of the phenomenon explanation is. But I want to emphasize the essence of this phenomenon: first of all, it comprises the profound respect to human rights and freedoms. Though, this is a controversial and miscellaneous issue sometimes. It happens so because of the following: we often confuse the rights and freedoms with hyper form of each of them. Therefore, we have to face conflicts and misunderstanding sometimes. We fail to realize where the boundaries and limits to our freedom are and where they should be. Consequently, we fail to realize where the boundaries are supposed to be according to other people’s opinion. I am sorry to distract your attention, but this is indeed essential and crucial for the given case. Was it democratic to arrest a person wrongfully? Was it democratic to accuse a person in crime he had nothing to do with? Furthermore, was it democratic to witness against the law and the evidence? Was there at least a hint of democracy? I fail to see it. There is only obvious violation of the basic rules and principles of democratic standards.

Besides, democracy presupposes freedom of speech and opened system in the general scope. “Male” could not even watch the video tape. Instead of presenting the claimed video tape and subsequent demonstrating the complete correspondence to the law system and respect to “male” as a person, the transit officer concealed it.

What is even more interesting and controversial – the transit officer showed the made up video tape to the lady in order to pretend to perform his duties and follow the procedure.

I would like to talk more about democracy and its practical aspects and implementation on practice, but I realize we have a lot of other issues to discuss.

Let us return to the Columbia case. There was nothing special about that case as it reminded hundreds of other similar ones. There happened to be an arrest at night nearby the night club. It is a usual case scenario for police. Though, this time there was something completely different as we can judge from the trial and its aftermath. The whole situation has been described from two different perspectives – by the plaintiff and by the defendant: “McCoy’s version of events is that he was only trying to ask police why they were arresting his friend and that police didn’t like his questions, so they arrested him, too. Police said McCoy’s actions and closeness to the officers was such that they constituted interference” (Monk & Lowe, 2013).

This case comprised three parties, and that was the most difficult and the most miscellaneous: there were officers as representatives of the law and justice in the city and current district; as well, there was a person who seemed to break the law and, therefore, had to be punished and arrested; besides, there was a person who dared to interfere between the law system, justice and their representatives, and the criminal. Moreover, this person dared to question the police and express his discontent with the whole situation and the fact of arrest. This three dimensional structure of the Columbia case demonstrated the complicated essence of justice system, as well as the significance of every detail that may change the whole story dramatically.

The evidence lacked the audio record as the video tape was not sufficient to support the officers’ side. The video record demonstrated the violation of personal and human rights, as well as professional duties performed by the officers. Still, no inappropriate questions and offensive phrases were to be heard as the tape missed the audio record obviously.

Thus, the lawsuit has been successfully won and Columbia agreed to pay $300, 000.

We consider it to be appropriate and relevant to perform the current lawsuit comprising $1,500, 000 in financial scope. “Male” was not simply wrongfully arrested and accused in the crime he had never done and had had no connection to it. Therefore, he suffered not only false accusations, but many other troublesome and completely irrelevant moments and events which the innocent person is not supposed to witness.

First of all, there was emotional distress. It happened with him in the course of a usual day. It was essential that all these events happened with him, not with the person that was responsible and guilty in the crime itself. “Male” realized clearly and distinctly enough that he was accused in actions of somebody else. This person, who apparently appeared to be guilty in the crime of breaking the bank, was still free and not arrested. The villain has been left on the streets of the city while the innocent person was accused.

Male’s mental state suffered, as a direct consequence of everything he has been through. Besides, how should he restore his reputation and authority among his friends, relatives and colleagues? The questions remain unanswered.

I distracted your attention one more time. I would be really sorry, if the data that has been just presented to you have had nothing to do with the case. But it does. It is a crucial aspect of the whole police activity: they seem to have at least somebody who may be arrested and presented as the true criminal, than go on with the search and questioning. Is it again – democratic and proper?

It is not – at least in such a country as ours. It should be not – I mean, in more general and even global scope.

I need to discuss the position of the police officer within the current situation of wrongful arrest, and in the scope of more globalized and more prominent issues and questions.

The status of the officer is highly respected and honored in the current course of time. Moreover, this position provides a person with the extra rights and privileges. There is no doubt that the officers enjoy more perspectives and more privileges, though it is not the most important aspect of the whole scope. Actually, the police officers are given a credit and certain powers as well as extra possibilities in comparison with general population. But even these aspects do not give the police officers the right to exaggerate the given power and subsequently use it in the wrong way.

As Fight Criminal Case proclaims and states: “Police officers are not above the law! They cannot legally arrest or detain you simply because they want to, or because of your race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or the way you dress. Neither can other types of law enforcement officers, security guards, store managers, or anyone else, for that matter.” These sentences comprise the proper and relatively short description of the claimed tort’s aspects and person’s rights in case of being falsely accused. Therefore, there is no reason to keep silence, everybody should argue his or her freedom in case there are some disappointments or emergency situations, as the current plaintiff did. There are even laws which protect all the citizens from negative outcome of similar situations: “We are protected from wrongful arrest and wrongful imprisonment by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment states, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law” (Fight Criminal Case).

Now I have a question. I do not need your answer – I do not want to pose. All I need is your frank reply to yourself. Be honest, please – this is my greatest concern right now. Did the police officer in the current case evidently deprive the person of liberty and as well of freedom? Yes, obviously he did.

Thus, can we trust our police in the future? There are some certain doubts.

Moreover, there are certain rules according to the documents and its whole procedures to be performed individually and according to the set of rules and standards: “A law enforcement officer must have probable cause and/or a warrant to arrest you. The Fourth Amendment requires that "No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation." If an officer knowingly presents false information in order to obtain an arrest warrant, it is still a wrongful arrest, even though there is a warrant.” The case demonstrates the absence of documental procedure, as well as many other services and interconnection.

Now I would like you to know that I am here not only as a professional. There is no doubt that I am here to provide a certain protection, to perform the lawsuit and as well to win the case. But it is not the only reason: I need justice to triumph.

I am here as a person initially. There were some personal and private issues which I would like to help “male” with. I am sure that the decision has already appeared, though it requires more text and more leisure time.

False Arest Summary

Now I would like to provide you with the list of potential reasons to regard the arrest as a false arrest:

“Reasons behind Wrongful Arrest can include simple incompetence, personal gain, racism, or pure malice. Due to the nature of unlawful arrest, other abuse often takes place during the incident including:

• Excessive force
• Assault and battery
• Sexual assault
• Wrongful death” ” (Fight Criminal Case).

I will not comment on the list and it correspondence to reality. I am grateful for your attention. Thank you for the proper atmosphere within the court. I hope for the consistent and essential decision! We claim “male” to be NOT guilty and demand the sum of $ 1,500, 000. It is not our whim or the way to earn money. It is justice and democracy.

More Writing Tips about How to Write a Case Study in APA Style